Time to move on past wedding fees

Nick Kotsopoulos Politics and the City

Published Sunday September 9, 2012 at 6:00 am

Politicians might do themselves well following the lead of that astute observer, George Louis Costanza, who in one episode of “Seinfeld” devised a plan to always end every conversation on a “high note” and “leave them wanting more.”

“I can usually come up with one good comment during a meeting, but by the end it’s buried under a pile of gaffs and bad puns,” George confessed to his friend, Jerry Seinfeld.

“Showmanship, George. When you hit that high note, you say goodnight and walk off,” Jerry advised him.

“I can’t just leave,” George then replied with great anguish.

Politicians seem to suffer a similar problem; they never know when to stop beating a dead horse.

A good example of that occurred last week when Councilor-at-Large Konstantina B. Lukes resurrected the issue of City Hall wedding fees before the council took up the re-appointment of David J. Rushford as city clerk.

Mrs. Lukes hit a proverbial “high note” earlier this year when she and District 2 Councilor Philip P. Palmieri got the City Council to change the city’s policy regarding where the fees generated from civil weddings performed at City Hall should go.

The city clerk and assistant city clerks were always allowed to keep that money — a practice allowed under state law and still followed in many other cities and towns. But Mrs. Lukes felt it was just plain wrong.

She argued that if city employees performed weddings in City Hall while on the city’s dime, then the fees for that service should go into the city treasury and not into their pockets.

Mrs. Lukes encountered much resistance from her colleagues for a long time, but she persisted. Finally, the council agreed earlier this year to change that policy. Since July 1, money from civil weddings performed by the city clerk and assistant city clerk, while on city time and in City Hall, now goes into the city treasury.

To compensate Mr. Rushford and Assistant City Clerk Susan Ledoux for the loss of that income, the council also agreed to give Mr. Rushford a $10,000 pay raise and Ms. Ledoux a roughly $3,500 raise.

That wasn’t what Mrs. Lukes had in mind but, heck, she did get the council to change the policy. It was a seismic change at City Hall to say the least.

But instead of following George Costanza’s philosophy of moving on after hitting that “high note,” Mrs. Lukes couldn’t resist bringing the issue back before the council.

Before voting on the election of the city clerk, she asked for information on the number of civil marriages performed at City Hall from January to June, and the total income generated from those weddings. She also wanted the city clerk to project the number of City Hall weddings he anticipated would be performed from July to December.

Mrs. Lukes wanted that information because she said she had heard that the city clerk’s office “planned to slow down” the number of weddings it performs since the city clerk and assistant city clerk are no longer allowed to keep the fees for performing civil weddings.

Because she feels there is no longer a financial incentive for them to do weddings, Mrs. Lukes wanted to make sure the city was going to at least get back in wedding fees the $10,000 pay raise it has given Mr. Rushford and the roughly $3,500 pay raise given to Ms. Ledoux.

Her statements and line of questioning annoyed many of her colleagues, who viewed them as nothing more than cheap shots that unfairly brought into question the integrity of the city clerk and even the City Council.

But Mrs. Lukes pointed out that since the policy was changed only 26 marriages were performed at City Hall during the first month (July). She said that is a far cry from the 40 to 50 weddings a month that was averaged by the clerk’s office before, when as many as 500 to 600 weddings were performed annually at City Hall.

What Mrs. Lukes failed to point out, though, was that even if the city clerk’s office averages 26 marriages ($1,900 in revenue) a month this fiscal year, the fees from those weddings would more than cover those raises. So, that shoots a hole in that argument.

And, let’s be honest, July is not exactly a big month for nuptials, especially compared to those months in the spring, fall and, of course, Valentine’s Day.

Also, the City Council recently raised the fee for City Hall weddings performed by the clerk’s office to $75, which is more in line with what other justices of the peace charge. Because the maximum fee used to be just $60, there is now less of a financial incentive to get married in City Hall.

Add all those factors together and it’s no wonder there hasn’t been a line out of the door in the city clerk’s office for weddings.

Even Mr. Palmieri, who also pushed hard for the policy change, thought the discussion was premature. He said one month does not give any kind of true indication regarding the number of weddings that will occur over the year.

But the fact that Mrs. Lukes made a point of bringing this up in conjunction with Mr. Rushford’s reappointment makes one wonder if she was more interested in changing the policy, which has been done, or simply trying to keep this issue alive so she can dust-up the city clerk some more — she ended up being the only councilor to vote against Mr. Rushford’s reappointment.

“Clearly, there is an underlying tension between (Mrs. Lukes) and the clerk, and I hope we can get past it,” said Councilor-at-Large Frederick C. Rushton.

Just as George Costanza ended up changing his way in the “Seinfeld” episode by leaving meetings and conversations on a “high note,” it’s time to stop beating the dead horse known as the City Hall wedding fee. The issue has been decided, it’s over and it’s time to move on, no matter how many people ended up getting married at City Hall.